Definite/Indefinite iDafa/iDaafa الإضافة

I always thought that the Mudaaf in Idafa constructs was ALWAYS definite, which explains why it never takes a tanween (I always thought of tanween=indefinite, no tanween=definite - generally speaking). This would also make sense, because anything with a possessive pronoun attached, eg. كتابه, is definite due to the possession and therefore has no tanween - correct? And doesn't the Mudaaf ilayh just replace that pronoun and nothing more?

To give an example.

كتابُ الرجلِ (The book of the man)
كتابُ رجلٍ (The/A book of a man)

I always thought of it as THE book of a man? If this is not the case, how would you say such a sentence, and how do we explain the lack of tanween and the comparison with the attached pronouns?

So the fact that the Mudaaf has no tanween is not relevant to its definiteness? I was only slightly confused because saying "kitaabuhu" makes kitaab definite, and I thought it doesn't matter what the "hu" is, kitaab will still be definite.

I agree with all the above posts, but I'd like to mention that the إضافة is such a convenient construction, that sometimes you're better off translating it saying, e.g., "a man's religion " rather than "a religion of a man" for دِينُ رَجُلٍ. This is obvious for something like دين but I think it is often so for common objects too.

The idea of one noun is very often more closely determined (يَتَخَصَّصُ) or defined (يَتَعَرَّفُ) by that of another*.
...

* [The تَخْصيّصٌ consists in qualifying an indefinite noun by an adjective, or an expression equivalent to an adjective, as a preposition with a genitive, or the genitive of an undefined noun, تَعْريفٌ is the defining of the noun by the genitive of a defined noun.].

Cherine said that the مضاف is always definite but this surprises me. بيت رجل cannot be a مبتدأ, for example, and I always thought this is because the construction is indefinite. I suspect it might be a rule trying to justify why مضافs take no تنوين, or not unlikely something I mis-analysed, but I advise you check back in a couple of days for a more definitive answer.

As for examples, find any article, you should find plenty of indefinite إضافةs. The top article today on AlJazeera.net, for instance (though NOT the best for grammar and such, it's the first thing I came across):http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A47D0269-EC48-4799-8944-FD471B13E7B9.htm
نتيجة انفجار عبوة
منازل مواطنين
سقوط جرحى
حاوية قمامة
سقوط مسعفين
سقوط خمسين
خروج مظاهرات

By very nature, people talk more in reference to something aforementioned (the), but we often still want to say 'a'. The إضافة doesn't always translate to/from English and French but it's very common, definite and indefinite, long and short. And it's a nice concise way of expressing complex ideas.

This is what somebody wrote to me (on Facebook!). The interesting part is where they mention various classical sources. I believe this is an Azhari brother.

There seems to be consensus among the Arabic grammarians (per al-Ajurrumiyya, Qatrunnada, and Ibn `Aqil's commentary on the Alfiyya) that the mudaaf is ma`rifa only when the mudaaf ilayhi is ma`rifa, not when it is a nakira. So from the two following cases:

هذا كتاب الرجل من أمريكا
هذا كتاب رجل من أمريكا

the word "kitaab" is a ma`rifa in the first case, but a nakira in the second, because the mudaaf ilayhi in the first case is a ma`rifa, whereas it's a nakira in the second case.​

I think Ibn Nacer's quote is very important and helpful here. The muDaaf to an indefinite word is مخصص not مُعرَّف (thank you, Ibn Nacer). This is new to me, and very interesting.
Also, Iskandarany's point, that such a structure can't be a mubtada2 is a very good point.

I still don't understand much what a mukhaSSaS is, but at least I learned something new, and I got this part about definite-indefinite clear.

This is what somebody wrote to me (on Facebook!). The interesting part is where they mention various classical sources. I believe this is an Azhari brother.

There seems to be consensus among the Arabic grammarians (per al-Ajurrumiyya, Qatrunnada, and Ibn `Aqil's commentary on the Alfiyya) that the mudaaf is ma`rifa only when the mudaaf ilayhi is ma`rifa, not when it is a nakira. So from the two following cases:

هذا كتاب الرجل من أمريكا
هذا كتاب رجل من أمريكا

the word "kitaab" is a ma`rifa in the first case, but a nakira in the second, because the mudaaf ilayhi in the first case is a ma`rifa, whereas it's a nakira in the second case.​

Click to expand...

If كتاب in the second case is نكرة then why does it not accept تنوين ??

The phrase " the book of a man" is a bit strange. I can't think of a situation really in English where I would say something like that.

If you want to talk about men's book in general, and you're saying "the book of a man is....." then I guess you would say: kutubu alrajuli.... = men's books..... (In Arabic, the article used with nouns can be used to address those nouns in a general sense, a bit like in Spanish.)

If, however, you're talking about one certain book that belongs to some man and you want to talk about that book, then you would just say: kitaabu rajulin = a man's book. It means the same thing in this context.

This is just my two cents, though. I'm still new myself, so you should wait for someone with more experience for the final word.

Generally, the definiteness of the possessor noun determines the definiteness of the entire construction. If the possessor is definite, then the whole idafa is definite. If it is indefinite, then the entire construction is indefinite.

kitaabu alrajuli = the man's book
kitaabu rajulin = a man's book

If you want to mix definiteness, then you use intervening prepositional phrases.

I and many others would say: a book of a man. However, there are some who disagree. (Look at Qoreshpor's post.)

In any event, the whole a/the noun #1 of a/the noun #2 translation is awkward. The best way to translate that phrase is: a man's book. The point is that you have a book and it belongs to an indefinite man.

Further, "the book of a man" isn't really used much in English. Unless, you're talking about men's books in general.

I and many others would say: a book of a man. However, there are some who disagree. (Look at Qoreshpor's post.)

In any event, the whole a/the noun #1 of a/the noun #2 translation is awkward. The best way to translate that phrase is: a man's book. The point is that you have a book and it belongs to an indefinite man.

Further, "the book of a man" isn't really used much in English. Unless, you're talking about men's books in general.

Click to expand...

I, for one, feel that "a book of a man" is ungrammatical. I would say "While walking in the woods today, I came across the body of a dead fox". Once removed from the genitive construction, though, I would say "While walking in the woods, I came across a body".

Even though the possessor here is indefinite, it is though we are looking at a depiction of that indefinite thing and pointing out the parts of it which are relevant. I know that both options happen, e.g. "At Subway today, the worker showed me the inside of a sandwich/the worker showed me an inside of a sandwich", but in my personal dialect, the last option seems awkward. I think it is because we have both the Germanic genitive (a man's book) and the analytical influence (from French?) with 'of', so we can avoid dealing with the articles altogether.

In French, do you say "un livre d'un homme" or "le livre d'un homme"?

In Arabic, it is clear that adjectives of the mudaaf of an indefinite idaafa are indefinite. I think it's hard to argue around this. In Akkadian, there is a form with no case vowel at all used for what would be the mudaaf in Arabic (bit- awil-im = bayt-u rajul-in/baytu r-rajuli, and there are no definite/indefinite distinctions. Perhaps as Arabic was developing its definite/indefinite system with al- and nunation, it had to compromise here to avoid ambiguity while retaining a rigorous case system - but the adjectives, in my mind, settle the argument of whether or not the word is definite.

Your first textbook is wrong, and I am afraid that our esteemed friend Qoreshpor is wrong as well. Put an adjective to it:

baytu malikin kabīrun means a big house belonging to an (unspecified) king = a big palace

baytu l-maliki l-kabīru means the big house belonging to the (specified) king = the big palace.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the esteem being conferred upon me but as you can tell from my ignorance, it is not warranted.

Thank you also for your explanation and I accept the logic behind adding an adjective. It is just that I remember reading in a grammar book that the first noun is always considered as definite, even though it does not have the definite article attached to it. That explanation, it seems, is wrong.

Looking at the construct below, I would translate it as "The book of this teacher" or "This teacher's book". Would you say this could also mean "A book of this teacher" or does the possessor need to be always indefinite for this interpretation?

Thank you for the esteem being conferred upon me but as you can tell from my ignorance, it is not warranted.

Thank you also for your explanation and I accept the logic behind adding an adjective. It is just that I remember reading in a grammar book that the first noun is always considered as definite, even though it does not have the definite article attached to it. That explanation, it seems, is wrong.

Looking at the construct below, I would translate it as "The book of this teacher" or "This teacher's book". Would you say this could also mean "A book of this teacher" or does the possessor need to be always indefinite for this interpretation?

كتاب هذا المدرس

Click to expand...

كتاب هذا المدرّس means either "This teachers book" or "the book of this teacher"

Qureshpor, you're right, I was in a rush. The only time you can't prepose the demonstrative is when there is no alif-laam, which you clearly have. I'll edit my post.

Click to expand...

That's no problem dkarjala. Your "challenge" made me go and look this up and before I could reply to you, you had already responded!

My reason for asking the question was linked to whether the first part of the construct should be thought of as definite or indefinite. It was asked as a consequence of a previous discussion (post 32 onwards). So, if "kitaabu" in "kitaabu haadhaa_lmuddaris" is considered indefinite in meaning, then we can say this translates to "a book of this teacher".

That's no problem dkarjala. Your "challenge" made me go and look this up and before I could reply to you, you had already responded!

My reason for asking the question was linked to whether the first part of the construct should be thought of as definite or indefinite. It was asked as a consequence of a previous discussion (post 32 onwards). So, if "kitaabu" in "kitaabu haadhaa_lmuddaris" is considered indefinite in meaning, then we can say this translates to "a book of this teacher".

Click to expand...

The problem is that it is still a muDaaf in a definite iDaafa, so it must be translated as "the book" of whatever. This is not one of the gray areas from various discussions.

Let me put it another way - if this doesn't mean THE book of this teacher, what does?

As you all have discussed, definiteness/indefiniteness is not a black and white affair. Especially when it comes to specifying or referring to mutually known items or parts of a whole. That being said, the only ambiguity, in my mind, lies with indefinite iDaafas, like كتاب مدرّس "a book of a teacher" (to me, this is not something a native speaker would ever choose) or "the book of a teacher". Both are correct. In a definite iDaafa, however, like yours, everything must be definite. I can't think of a counterexample, but would love to see one.

Here is an example of an indefinite subject in a nominal sentence. ( I could n't type shayy-in correctly)

...أسد مرة شاخ و ضعف و لم يقدر علي شيئ من الوحوش

Once upon a time a lion grew old and weak and had no longer any power over the wild beasts..

Click to expand...

It does happen sometimes that a grammatically indefinite word acts as a مبتدأ, however this does not constitute evidence concerning the definiteness of 1) the muDaaf alone, since it is the whole iDaafa which plays a nominal role in the sentence nor does it 2) provide a statistically relevant situation.

The example you give is a story, and the noun is the protagonist. What follows is, of course, my theory but it is based on my current knowledge. This kind of subject, the subject of a joke or an anecdote, is often subject to unusual syntax. This is a quality that is sometimes called 'salience'. It is almost as if all stories like this begin with an omitted كان هناك. Also, compare how this is handled in some dialects. If you were telling a joke, for example, in quite a few dialects you would use the atypical construction waaHid + noun., واحد صعيدي، واحد بدوي etc. Because the character is new to the listener, it needs to be indefinite - but because of its salience as the main character, it is treated as the topic and put out front - in dialect, by switching the adjective واحد to the front, you are sort of 'protecting' the indefinite noun. drawing attention to it, and using the indefinite idea of 'one' as a sort of article; not definite, but specifying.

Other grammatically indefinite things can be a مبتدأ , too, such as the superlative construction with iDaafa.

اكبر رجل، اجمل بنت، الخ

But these are semantically definite and therefore psychologically easy to use after انّ and even as nominal subjects.

In any case, it would be better to see an example of an indefinite iDaafa​ as a nominal subject.

Iskandarani seems to have indicated that in his opinion if a construct such as "kitaabu rajul-in" is definite, then it should be allowed to become the subject (mubtada) of a nominal sentence. One can then extrapolate the implication that for a nominal sentence, one must have a definite subject. I have provided an example of a nominal sentence with an indefinite subject.It is as simple as this.